Talk:Dutch people/Archive 2

Untitled

I moved this to an archive as the first effort at archiving was largely undone by copy-pasintg old stuff back in the new discussion. Arnoutf 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fresh start

Okay, is it fair to start the dispute with the text which reads The Dutch mainly descend from various Germanic tribes, and are hence regarded to be a Germanic people.

Looking at Britannica, I read:

the area was originally settled by Germanic peoples, the north and west were occupied by the Frisians, the east by the Saxons, and the south by the Franks. The Dutch language developed mainly from the dialect of the Franks. Differences between the groups can still be noted in local dialects, customs, traditional folk costumes, and in types of farmhouses. Considerable numbers of foreigners have settled in the country.

Now to me that suggests that we can't be as strong as stating that they "are hence regarded to be a Germanic people". I'd suggest we need a source which states that they are a germanic people. I'd argue that it's fair to state that according to Britannica a large proportion of the population are of germanic descent, I'd think the above plus the later line that "About 9 percent of the population is of foreign origin." substantiate that. All quotes from [1]. Any thoughts on that opening position? Hiding Talk 13:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The opening was: The Dutch people (Dutch: Nederlanders, meaning 'Lowlanders') are an ethnic group who form the majority of the population in the Netherlands (13 million in 2006). The Dutch mainly descend from various Germanic tribes, and are hence regarded to be a Germanic people.

I agree the word Hence is not adequate here. However if you consider the opening line of Britannica[2] on Germanic peoples the Dutch are a Germanic people.

Perhaps something like: The Dutch people (Dutch: Nederlanders, meaning 'Lowlanders') are an ethnic group who form the majority of the population in the Netherlands (13 million in 2006). The Dutch mainly descend from various Germanic tribes. About 9 percent of the population of the Netherlands are of non-western origin[3]. As the Dutch language is a Germanic language, the Dutch are considered a Germanic people[4].

One problem using Britannica (as sole source) here. With a population of about 16 mill; you deduct 9% (about 1.5 mill) foreingenrs according to Britannica and end up with 14.5 Germanic ancestry; while the article lists 13 mill. CIA world factbook list 83% Dutch origin (~13mill) and 9% non-western immigrants[5].

Something like this? Arnoutf 14:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that since you are stating that opening sentence, it is only people of Germanic descent who are Dutch. You need to make it clear in what sense you are referring, and you also need to couch the assertion so that we note that it is "according to source". Wikipedia shouldn't typically assert such figures from it's own authorship, and it might be best to avoid them, since as you say, conflicting sources will, if all added to the article, make it impractically large. Still, just my thoughts. Hiding Talk 14:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

you have a good point there. The Dutch people (Dutch: Nederlanders, meaning 'Lowlanders') are an ethnic group who form the majority of the population in the Netherlands (83% or 13 million in 2006). About 9 percent of the population of the Netherlands are of non-western origin[6]. The Dutch mainly descend from various Germanic tribes, and the Dutch language is a Germanic language. If we phrase it something like this I can live without an explicit Germanic peoples reference in the opening section. Arnoutf 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We're forgetting one thing here, the Ethnic Dutch decend from Germanic people. Now the 9% non western part of the Dutch population don't, but a lot of the western immigrants don't either a russian for example isn't likely to be of Germanic decend. A German probably is (although the celtic heartland once lay in Southern Germany) but he or she isn't Dutch ... it might be safer to remove all immigrants, not just the non western ones.Rex 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica article does not state that the modern Dutch are a Germanic people, or that they are an Indo-European people, or that ethnic groups speaking a Germanic language are by that token a Germanic people. To say that the modern Dutch are a Germanic people would distort the article, since it would present the view of a tiny minority of far-right nationalists as fact. It would also falsely imply that most people in the Netherlnds are comfortable with the description, whereas in reality it is something of a political taboo. The reason is, of course, that it implies that the Dutch are in fact a sort of German, a view which is indeed taboo since the German occupation of 1940-45. During the occupation, the identification of the Dutch as 'Germanic' was promoted, to the extent of creating a special SS corps to recruit in the Netherlands, the Germanic SS. That's why the term got a bad name. With this background, it would be very inaccurate to imply acceptance of the term Germanic.Paul111 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Germanic, isn't the adjective form of German. That's why English is a Germanic language and not a German dialect. Germanic comes from the group of people/culture who spoke the Proto-Germanic language (Which wasn't Old German). Germans are considered a Germanic people, but not by far are all Germanic peoples are Germans. The fact that you don't know this clearly illustrates your tunnel vision here. When I read Germanic, I think of linguistics ... not a nazi SS poster.Rex 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern Germans are not considered a Germanic people.Paul111 16:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• But Paul111 makes a good point. We should make it clear that we aren't describing the modern Dutch people as being Germanic. We should describe the early settlers as being Germanic, and date their settlement, but we shouldn't discuss the modern day Dutch as Germanic. As Rex points out, context is key and os it is best if we contextualise all the information. Hiding Talk 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Also, Norman Davies writes that "familiar terms such as 'Holland', 'Dutch', and 'Netherlands' all possessed different connotations from those which they later acquired", Europe: A History, p.379. I think that needs to be borne in mind when using these terms. To which Dutch are we referring, the ancient or the modern? Hiding Talk 16:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Germanic peoples, also called Teutonic Peoples, any of the Indo-European speakers of Germanic languages.". Dutch is a Germanic language, German is too, hence they are both Germanic peoples. It's as simple as that.Rex 16:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what we are claiming in the article. If you want to claim that, and you can source it, I can't see a problem as long as it is attributed and presented properly. Hiding Talk 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• How about noting that "Norman Davies has noted that the principle ancestors of the Dutch, along with the English and the Flemish, are Germanic in origin". That's supported by Europe: A History, p.222, and contextualises the point, making no claim about how the modern Dutch regard their ancestory. It can be expanded to clarify the tribes involved. I'll post the full text of Davies later if needed. Hiding Talk 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I see your point in the Norman Davies has... this may easily lead to an unreadable article. In scientific style I would say The principle ancestors of the Dutch and Flemings were Germanic in origin (Davies, year of publication).

Another point we have to decide on; do we follow Britannica in the definition (listed by e.g. Rex) that all speakers of a Germanic language are a Germanic people. In that case the Dutch (and Germans for that matter) are still a Germanic people. Untill now that is the only definition I have seen which is fairly neutral. Arnoutf 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Dutch, English and Flemings". I think the second part of your post deals with issues guided on at WP:NPOV: "be careful to avoid an English-speaking Point Of View". Hiding Talk 18:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree English are mentioned in the text, I took them out as I think it is not relevant for this article but (IMHO) it does not matter much (of course as soon as you quote, which I did not intend to, it has to be in).

The problem is that there seem to be several definitions of Germanic people. The Britannica definition (see above) is also used in Wiki Germanic people. Though this discussion I have become well aware that there maybe some nationalistic associations. So I think we are stuck with 2 evils here - Using the (neutral Britannica) definition and acknowledge the Dutch as a Germanic People; althoug this may have some (IMHO minor) nationalistic taste. Or remove every reference to Germanic, which is neutral but has the consequence that we can hardly talk about the ancesters of the Dutch, and the larger ethnic grouping of the Dutch within Europe. My choice is to use the term Germanic (and try to explain it is merely used to refer to the larger grouping of related ethinc groups in NW Europe, and that no right-wing implications are intended); but Paul111 appears to be very much opposed. I think this is more or less the core of the whole problem - Should we use words that may have a potentially rightwing connotation. In my opinion not, if we can avoid it. However if there are no other concise words; I think we can (and should) not avoid using the words there are.Arnoutf 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have to do it at all. We've agreed on a text that would identify the origins as Germanic, why do we need to go any further? I'm not understanding the point. Where is this relevant? Hiding Talk 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Let it be clear that if we remove referenced and correct information just because Paul111 doesnt agree it's not NPOV.Rex 18:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry bit of frustration cropping up; got carried away a bit. You are right; just acknowledge the Dutch are of Germanic origin; and perhaps mention the language is Germanic and leave it at that. The current Dutch probably have about as much Ghanese blood as true Germanic blood (if that ever existed) Arnoutf 18:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Germanic SS

I suggest all editors read the articles Germanic-SS and Nederlandsche SS, to understand the post-1945 connotations of the term Germaans - Germanic - in the Netherlands (and in Flanders).Paul111 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We all know what the SS is. The connotation is, however, mainly 1940-45 (and the trials in the years after). I doubt whether that connotation still exists (the articles do not say anything about that; so that is speculation). Arnoutf 19:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. According to the Van Dale, the authorative Dutch dictionary in the Netherlands (and in Flanders) is:

• Ger·maan (de ~ (m.), -manen)
  • 1 elk van de leden van de volksstammen tussen Noordzee, Schelde, Maas, Rijn, Donau en Weichsel [zo genoemd door Kelten en Romeinen]
  • 2 elk van de nakomelingen uit de stammen die een Germaanse taal spreken
  • 3 [scherts.] Duitser

• Ger·maans1 (het ~)
  • 1 afdeling van de Indo-Europese talen, taal van de Germanen

• Ger·maans2 (bn.)
• 1 betr. hebbend op, van de Germanen
• 2 behorend tot de Germaanse taal

The suggestion by Paul111, that Germanic only has nazi overtones is completely flawed, should be ignored and seen as the opinion of one man. Rex 19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That being said. I like the suggestion by Hiding that we stay with descend from Germanic people. That waywe can include non-Germanic Dutch (e.g. Surinamers) among the Dutch without internal contradiction. Arnoutf 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think as long as we link to the article at Germanic peoples and contextualise the manner in which we use the term Germanic, I can't see any reason to avoid it. It is a widely used term to describe these peoples so I can't see how we can avoid using it in the appropriate manner. Hiding Talk 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if Dutch people have a problem being seen as of Germanic origin: any connotation with German, let alone Nazi-Germany, is to my knowledge absent from the minds of Flemish people. The occupying Nazi regime's propaganda tried to get 'Arien' people from its 'Westland' to enlist so as to fight against the Russians at the Eastern Front, only a very small minority volonteered and after the War, many or all got five years of imprisonment for it and lost certain civil rights forever. Only a group within the Flemish-nationalist party Volksunie, itself a minor party, kept asking for 'amnesty' so as to restore civil rights to those who had lost such. After a schism between moderate and extreme right, the latter together with extreme right alleged neo-nazi groups came to form the Vlaams Blok party. Only after some years, while the 'amnesty'-demanding generation grew too old and became inactive in the party, this party grew considerably mainly around an unfriendly position towards Mediterranean, mainly North African, immigrants, its Flemish independance theme may rather have served to gather stronger Flemish-nationalist group feelings to facilitate opposing immigrants (in itself rather a means that might be steered by and towards the by many largely forgotten original ideologies); many and probably most of its voters are hardly or not aware of the earlier (neo-)nazi connotations. In Flanders, while nowadays more and more a 'black' is becoming a reference to a person's skin colour, the term had always referred to the person's dubious or worse attitude during WWII (usually by collaboration), and entices little sympathy. And yet, the Flemish learnt at school about mainly the Franks being their far ancestors and know very well they speak a Germanic language and it is their own language, not one forced upon them as happened with the Romanic language French in many areas of France and between 200 till 50 years ago to a considerable extent in Flanders. And as presumably all people (especially if neighbouring people look like them) who speak what they rightfully consider their own language, they identify by it – and consider themselves as a Germanic people; even WWII veterans that had become POWs and may not easily be seen as sympathethic to Germany, and definitely not towards nazism. I would think that in the Netherlands, Dutch people might largely feel the same way though perhaps the lack of ever having been dominated by a Romanic language speaking elite and people, may have made them less conscious of their Germanic heritage. Nevertheless, since what is at present day called Flanders, has suffered more long-time occupations (Spanish, French) than the present day Netherlands, and the Flemish always lived close to the French-speaking part of their country, hence their family trees will more often be rather mixed and some common family names are clearly of French-language origin, and no-one cares because these families speak the local language. Flemish identification as a Germanic people is language-bound, not bloodline-bound. Nevertheless I think the Dutch to be ethnically even more Germanic. False connotations, particularly - as I think Hiding suggested at 18:29 UTC in the above section - by English people, should not cause rewriting the history of other peoples. — SomeHuman 15 Jan2007 20:17 (UTC)

Broad definition of Dutch people

Some new edits speak of a pre-20th century broad definition of the Dutch people and the term Dutch. No source is given. As I indicated this is accurate enough for the period of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, 1815-1830. Otherwise it is problematic, especially if it implies that a single Dutch people pre-dates the Dutch Republic. To start with, the source should be given.Paul111 19:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am getting so incredibly tired of this. The source has been given stop this ridicule.Rex 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Again: Nobody claims there were a single Dutch people, not even during the Republic. I think the Kingdom of the Netherlands is an especially problematic era (rather than an acceptable one) because an artificial state was formed for a short duration; in which different population groups were forced together. Arnoutf 19:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If the source has been given, then please be so kind as to include it in a footnote.Paul111 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No source was given, so it was removed. A clarification about the period 1815-1830 would be useful.Paul111 12:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsens. The information was sourced, and when you remove sourced information whilst not giving (proper) arguments then that's vandalism. I told you many times before (but you continue to "ignore" it) that Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden speaks of Nederlanders from the end of the Franks and speaks of Belgians (as a nationality) from its independance, it then continues to speak of "(Zuid)nederlanders" untill the early 20th century when Fleming in its modern meaning appears.Rex 14:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If a source is available then please include it in a footnote.Paul111 14:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to gree with Paul111 in ths]is case for two reasons. First of all Paul111 removed only one line that (IMHO) was not at all essential to the message given (so it did not unduly influence the article), and second, I agree with Paul111 in this case, that the claim was fairly bold; and therefore needed a specific reference. Arnoutf 15:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dutch-Americans

On the issue of wheter Dutch-Americans should be included in the 'Dutch', see the original US Census question: at US Census. The question in the 2000 Census asks:

What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?(For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am., Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.)

Most reported ancestries correspond to one existing state, but some (Scotch-Irish, Arab, Slavic) do not. Multiple reporting is possible, the largest single combination is 'Irish-German' . The Census question does not in itself provide a source for the claim that there are 5 million Dutch people in the US. It indicates what it says on the question, ancestry or ethnic origin.Paul111 19:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetic uniqueness of the Dutch

The present text says that there are genetic mutations unique to the Dutch. The cited source does not say that. It says that there are founder mutations present in the Dutch population. It does not say they affect all the population, and the implication that there are genetic markers that can positively identify an individual as 'Dutch' is also false. Any suggestion that there is a DNA test for Dutch ethnicity should be avoided. The text should be rewritten to clarify the point.Paul111 11:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How about this? Hence the Dutch share a lot of their genetics with other European people, nevertheless there are some mutations that arose among the Dutch. (only changed the last part of the sentence. If arose is to archaic, feel free to change to originated or something similar. Arnoutf 11:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material re-inserted, 21 January

Some items which were deleted as unsourced were re-inserted in the article. I undid these edits, while retaining the new image placed by the user. Wikipedia deletion policy is that unsourced material can be removed. All of this was discussed above, including the lack of source per item.Paul111 14:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The information was sourced, and when you remove sourced information whilst not giving (proper) arguments then that's vandalism. I told you many times before (but you continue to "ignore" it) that Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden speaks of Nederlanders from the end of the Franks and speaks of Belgians (as a nationality) from its independance, it then continues to speak of "(Zuid)nederlanders" untill the early 20th century and only then does Fleming in its modern meaning appear.Rex 14:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If a source is available then please include it in a footnote.Paul111 14:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And where would you like such a broad source like this then?Rex 14:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Quality

I think we are not yet ready for A quality. Among others because the article is not stable. More importantly I think it would be a good idea to ask a non-involved editor (ie someone who has not made major contributions to this article) to give the quality labels to prevent biases. Therefore, I reverted Rex recent A-class label to B-class. Of course, if you would recommend the grading to some uninvolved editor and (s)he assign the A-class I would really be pleased. But please be carefull with rating own work, as objectiveness is easily lost that way. Arnoutf 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, I compared this article to the other A-class articles and just thought it was way better than those ...Rex 18:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed

User Sander/Rex Germanus moved the reasons for disputing accuracy to an archive page, and then removed the accuracy-disputed tag on the ground that there was no explanation on the talk page. He also removed citation-needed tags, and then used the lack of these tags as a reason to remove the accuracy-disputed tag. The reasons for disputing the accuracy are still much as they were. The main issues are:

• Greater Netherlands irredentism, specifically the claim that Flemings and Dutch constitute one people
• the related claim that a single Dutch people existed prior to the Dutch Revolt and was divided by it (ethnic irredentism)
• any claim for a 'Dutch people' prior to around 1550
• the claim that the Dutch are a Germanic people, a terminology confined to the far-right
• inclusion of Flemish and Afrikaner populations in the table, leading to inflated population figures.

To address these issues the following deletions are necessary:

• Historically the Dutch chiefly lifed the Low Countries and Northern France but have since the 12th century spread all over the world No Dutch ethnic group lived in Northern France. No Dutch people existed in the 12th century and therefore they did not go anywhere at that time. No source is given for these claims, except this article itself. 'Source' means an external reliable source, see WP:SOURCE.
• 30 million Dutch: no source
• Flemings listed as Dutch: no source. Cited CIA Factbook simply says that 68% of the Belgian population are Dutch speakers. It does not say they are Dutch.
• 5 million Afrikaners listed as Dutch: no source. Cited source simply says they are of partial Dutch ancestry.
• Afrikaners generally do not consider themselves to only be ethnic Dutch. Delete word only, it implies they do consider themselves to be Dutch. No source. If they are Dutch, then why do they call themselves Afrikaners?
• Dutch immigrants went to Brandenburg in 1157. No source for existence of a Dutch people in 1157.
• Dietsland name for image: article has been renamed.
• the (future) Dutch were led by Germanic chieftains. If they were not Dutch, then they were not Dutch. No source.
• the Dutch now answered to the East Frankish and later German King, which continued until the Dutch revolt. No Dutch people at that time. No source.

Most of these points have been discussed already, and no consensus has been reached. The procedure for an editing dispute should therefore be followed.Paul111 19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said below. YOU follow YOUR OWN definitions. We have provided sources and references for every statement above. YOU are the one who keeps SPAMMING this talk page with your own bias WITHOUT SOURCES. Delete referenced information or replace it by your own bias unreferenced information and I'll report you.Rex 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Flemings and Afrikaners are not Dutch

These issues have been discussed extensively, see the archive. The fact that Flemings are called Flemings, and Afrikaners are called Afrikaners, is in itself an indication that they are not seen as Dutch. Self-definition is an important aspect of ethnicity, and if the Dutch regarded the Flemish and Afrikaners as part of the Dutch people or nation, then the article should say so. But they don't, they see them as foreigners. And if they are Dutch, then why are no Afrikaners or Flemings listed as famous Dutch painters or philosophers, and why is Afrikaner culture not included in the culture section? Because people don't see these groups as Dutch, that's why. They see the Dutch as a group associated solely with the present territory of the Netherlands, and that is the way the Dutch themselves think, with the exception of a tiny minority of irredentists.Paul111 19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and the fact that a English horse is a "horse" and a Dutch horse is a "paard" means they are 2 different species. Great reasoning there. The article makes it perfectly clear that Flemings nor Afrikaners aren't Dutch. Read the frickin article before you start another talk page discussion in which you express YOUR opinion and refuse to react on our comments.Rex 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dutch are not a Germanic people

The cited source (Britannica) does not say the Dutch are a Germanic people. It identifies the Germanic peoples as historically existing Indo-European peoples who later assimilated (by the Middle Ages). It does not say the Dutch are an Indo-European people, and it does not say that speakers of Dutch belong to a Germanic people.Paul111 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch speak a Germanic language and are hence a Germanic people. Period. It doesn't matter you associate "Germanic" with the Germanic SS, it's a fixed definition and you'll just have to live with that.Rex 19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia deletion guidelines

Some deletions of unsourced material were reverted by Sander/Rex Germanus using the argument that the deletion was 'unsourced' and that no arguments were given. No source is required for the deletion of unsourced material, and no arguments are required, see WP:DELETE. The onus is entirely on the editors who want to retain material to provide a reliabel source for it. Very dubious political claims have been inserted into this article, and despited repeated requests no source has been provided for most of them. Deletion is then necessary.Paul111 19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fedd up with this. Delete referenced information once more with no other arguments than your own opinion and I'll report you as a vandal.Rex 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the items listed on the deletion list above.Paul111 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We already did that. Learn to read.Rex 19:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

List for Paul111

Below here is a list for Paul111, may he read them, and never mention them on this (or any) talk page again.

• Dutch people before 12th century.

Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden. As said so many times before, it speaks of the Dutch after the start of the Holy Roman Empire. (early 9th century)

Where is Paul111s source that no Dutch people existed before the 12th century? (revisionism?)

• Dutch people before the Dutch revolt.

See source mentioned above.

Where is Paul111s source that no Dutch people existed before Dutch revolt? (revisionism?)

• Claim that Flemings and Dutch constitute one people

The article specifically mentions the Flemings and Dutch are nowadays 2 separate countries. Wikipedia is meant to represent multiple SOURCED views. Not Paul111s unsourced view.

• 30 million Dutch

All explained in the article, this is when the Flemish are added.

• Flemings listed as Dutch

False claim by Paul111. Nowhere in the article are the Flemish listed as Dutch.

• 5 million Afrikaners listed as Dutch

Sourced information, purposely ignored by paul111, it concerns Dutch ancestry.

• Afrikaners generally do not consider themselves to only be ethnic Dutch. Delete word only, it implies they do consider themselves to be Dutch. No source. If they are Dutch, then why do they call themselves Afrikaners?

Made up claim by Paul111. It isnt in the article, hence I will not answer it.

• Dutch immigrants went to Brandenburg in 1157. No source for existence of a Dutch people in 1157.

Onbekende buren, source already given and in article.

• the (future) Dutch were led by Germanic chieftains. If they were not Dutch, then they were not Dutch.

They are the ancestors of the Dutch, hence future.

Paul111 continue to deny the herritage of the Dutch (revisionism?)

• the Dutch now answered to the East Frankish and later German King, which continued until the Dutch revolt. No Dutch people at that time.

See first remark above.

Where is Paul111s source that no Dutch people existed? (revisionism?)

Rex 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)